Who Wrote EPA’s “Myths vs Facts”?

The Mann Statement of Claim prominently displayed, as one of only two quotations from the “inquiries”, an extended quotation from the Myths vs Facts webpage, included as one of three Resources accompanying the EPA decision denying reconsideration of various petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding (though Mann’s Statement of Claim falsely cited the gazetted (Federal Register) denial decision itself as its source.) The Myths vs Facts document (as well as the Factsheet and Press Release, also linked as “Resources”) contained statements and assertions that were both untrue and which were undocumented in the actual language of the “formal” documents that they were supposedly supporting.

The identity of the authors (and reviewers, if any) is not disclosed in the supporting documents (RTP documents) for the denial decision – Jean S speculated a few days ago that Gavin Schmidt was involved in EPA’s supposed investigation and “exoneration” of Michael Mann; Schmidt has thus far refused to comment.

In an earlier post, I had speculated that these documents had been prepared by the EPA communications office. This speculation has proved correct. The Myths vs Facts document was authored by non-specialists in the EPA communications. Neither it nor the other “Resources” appear to have been externally peer reviewed – somewhat ironic in light of Mann’s reliance on the document.

Today’s post is based on a FOIA production by EPA to one of the parties to Mann’s libel proceedings (CEI).

On December 6, 2013, CEI filed an FOI request with EPA, the first two items of which asked EPA for:

Any documents, other than published studies, relied upon or reviewed by EPA in reaching the factual conclusions or making the claims found in the following passages from [Myths vs Facts]: [the passage is the extended quotation reproduced in the Mann Statement of Claim].

Any documents specifying or listing the authors of that publication…

On April 25, 2014, EPA provided an interim response, indicating that further information would be provided in the future on a “rolling” basis. It asserted “deliberative and attorney-client privilege” (FOIA exemption 5) to expurgate. The first production of documents contained no reference to the Myths vs Facts document, though it did contain some correspondence about the RTP documents.

On May 29, 2014, nearly six months from the original request, EPA provided a second production. The production consisted of 11 emails between July 19 and July 28. In the covering email, EPA stated:

The names listed in the To, From and CC field in these emails comprise the individuals who authored the document.

Six different document names are attested in the emails (which were heavily expurgated and redacted by EPA). The following table shows the date and originator of each version (middle column) and recipients/cc in the right column.

Document

Data (From)

To/CC

Draft Communication Strategy

July 19 (Birgfeld)

Berlin, Drinkard

Factsheet

July 20 (Birgfeld), 22 (Jantarasami), 28 (Birnbaum)

Kruger, Millett, Drinkard, Hannon, (OGC)

Outreach Piece

July 20 (Birnbaum), 22 (Jantarasami)

Kruger, Birnbaum, Millett, Drinkard

Press Release

July 26, 27 (Birgfeld)

Milbourn

Talking Points

July 20, 22 (Birgfeld), 28 (Birnbaum)

DeAngelo, Samenow, Millett, Drinkard, Hannon (OGC)

Web Text

July 22 (Birgfeld), 28 (Birnbaum)

Rosseel, Hannon (OGC)

The webpage associated with the denial decision included three “Resources”: a Factsheet, Press Release and Myths vs Facts, plus web text of the page itself. The documents attached to the emails, that were labeled “Press Release” and “Factsheet” are presumably predecessor to the corresponding documents in the Resources accompanying the denial decision. I surmise that document entitled “Web Text” is the text for the web page.

None of the attached documents contain the phrase “Myths” in the document name. This leaves either “Outreach Piece” or “Talking Points” as possibilities for the Myths vs Facts document. Of these two, the “Talking Points” document seems more likely (as it, but not the Outreach Piece, was sent to John Hannon of the Office of General Counsel on July 28 (together with the Factsheet and web text) as “outreach materials” for review. (The analysis differs only slightly if “Outreach Piece” is the predecessor document.)

The Authors of Myths vs Facts

Based on this identification (and the names only change slightly if the Outreach Piece is identified), the author of Myths vs Facts appears to be Erin Birgfeld, Director of Communications, Climate Change Division. Birgfeld’s (linkin profile here) education background was in biology and environmental toxicology, with her prior EPA employment in the EPA’s “Methane to Markets Partnership”. Lesley Jantarasami (profile here, here), then only months removed from being an intern with the US Forest Service, drafted other outreach documents and might also have been involved (in emails not produced.)

The first draft was prepared on July 20, 2010, less than 10 days prior to the rollout of the Denial Decision. During this week (and even on rollout morning), comments and changes to the RTP documents were still being made. The FOIA documents thus far provided show that the Myths vs Facts document was distributed for comment to EPA communications specialists and EPA general counsel, but none of these documents show whether responses were received. I’ll briefly review the email chronology.

On July 20, Erin Birgfeld sent a first draft of the Talking Points to Ben DeAngelo and Jason Samenow with the following covering text:

Based on our conversation, here are some TPs [talking points] that I think get at the heart of what we talked about.

DeAngelo was the lead author of the Endangerment Finding. DeAngelo is a long-time EPA staffer, who, according to his linkedin profile holds a Master’s Degree in Geography, earned at the University of Toronto. Samenow was also a co-author of the Endangerment Finding. Although also an EPA staffer, Samenow appears from time to time at the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang and received an award from George Mason University in 2010 as Climate Communicator of the year. EPA’s production of relevant emails did not include a response or acknowledgement from either DeAngelo or Samenow.

On July 22, under the subject line Outreach Materials, Birgfeld sent a revised version of Talking Points (together with the Factsheet, Press Release and Outreach Piece) to John Millett and Andrea Drinkard, both EPA communications staffers, with Millett the more senior.

Attached are the outreach materials for Endangerment. Dina [Kruger] is still reviewing the tough Q and As so they are on a later track. Please let us know what you think. We are trying to get drafts to Seth [presumably Oster, Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs ] by tomorrow. We are also having OGC [Office of General Counsel] review these concurrently.

No responses are shown in the FOIA documents.

On July 28, the day before rollout, Rona Birnbaum, Chief, Climate Science and Impacts Branch sent the Factsheet, Talking Points and Web Text to John Hannon (Office of General Counsel) for legal review (copying Erin Birgfeld).

Communications materials for review. Web page, still work in progress (Dina [Kruger] has reviewed)

EPA Policies

EPA Guidelines require that EPA carry out external peer review for “influential scientific information”, as well as prescribing standards of “transparency”. EPA policy states that information “disseminated in support of top Agency actions” will generally considered to be “influential”:

6.3. EPA will generally consider the following classes of information to be influential, and, to the extent that they contain scientific, financial, or statistical information, that information should adhere to a rigorous standard of quality:

Information disseminated in support of top Agency actions (i.e., rules, substantive notices, policy documents, studies, guidance) that demand the ongoing involvement of the Administrator’s Office and extensive cross-Agency involvement; issues that have the potential to result in major cross-Agency or cross-media policies, are highly controversial, or provide a significant opportunity to advance the Administrator’s priorities. Top Agency actions usually have potentially great or widespread impacts on the private sector, the public or state, local or tribal governments. This category may also include precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues.

It is hard to contemplate actions that better fit these criteria than proceedings connected with the Endangerment Decision, including the denial of the petitions for reconsideration. Since the Myths vs Facts document was disseminated in support of a “top Agency action” fitting these criteria, it would appear to be “influential” scientific information under EPA Guidelines.

Under EPA (and OMB) policies, as “influential scientific information”, the Myths vs Facts document ought to have received external peer review, which, obviously, it did not receive.

Second, EPA policies also prescribe “transparency” for influential scientific information. Despite these transparency requirements, EPA heavily expurgated their FOIA production, asserting “deliberative and attorney-client privilege” (the latter only applicable to exchanges with the OGC). While this privilege does apply to many documents, transparency obligations for “influential scientific information” appear to supercede kneejerk assertion of “deliberative” privilege.

Conclusion

The EPA’s “Myths vs Facts” document, relied upon in the Mann Statement of Claim, contains untrue assertions that are not supported by the language of the more “formal” documents. It
appears to have been written by Erin Birgfeld, an EPA communications officer (with possible involvement of Lesley Jantarsami.) It seems highly doubtful, to say the least, that Birgfeld had detailed personal knowledge of the Climategate emails or the various associated controversies. Nor does the document appear to have been peer reviewed by anyone who had detailed personal knowledge of the Climategate controversies. Birgfeld sought review of the Talking Points document from within the EPA communications office and the EPA Office of General Counsel, but there is no record thus far of responses or comments on the document. Nor are any of the parties from whom Birgfeld sought review known to have investigated the Climategate emails or to have personal knowledge of the Climategate controversies.

It seems implausible that any DC judge, where memories of Susan Rice’s honoring of Bowe Bergdahl as a “hero” are still fresh, could rule that Steyn or Simberg or CEI are required to accept assertions in Washington Talking Points memos as established “facts”.

Regarding the Myths document being “influential scientific information”, EPA claimed that the original endangerment finding did not even fall in that category and thus that they did not need to verify the IPCC info they based it on (ie, did not have to follow the normal rules for such things). Interesting that the whole process was treated casually, unlike say the evaluation of a pesticide or setting of human health limits for intake of mercury from fish. And yet it is being used to prohibit new coal plants (not a big deal I suppose…).

In light of the EPA claim to have reviewed all the Climategate emails, I wonder if there are any documents in EPA possession documenting who did the review, what online source they used to access them, how the results were tabulated, to whom they were reported, and how long the process took.

Ross, can you provide exact language in which EPA purport to have reviewed all the Climategate emails. There is a sentence on page 19 of the Federal Register article which says “EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of the disclosed CRU e-mails in light of the petitioners’ claims,..” but read closely this seems to be limited to claims about temperature data manipulation: “Petitioners claim the various methods that CRU used to integrate and adjust the surface temperature data introduce biases in the temperature record that were designed to support the view that global surface temperatures are increasing faster than they actually are.”

Are there more categoric statements that they investigated “all” the emails?

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

I think I’m not the only one who understands the above such that they reviewed all the emails (instead of all the emails disclosed by the petitioners) as the CRU statement (brought to our attention by Tim Osborn) highligths:

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has examined every one of the hacked CRU emails and has strongly affirmed that it finds nothing more than “candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets”.

The petitions prompted an extensive and thorough investigation by the EPA of the evidence provided by the petitioners to support their claims, including an exhaustive consideration of all of the CRU hacked emails and most of the hacked documents.

This investigation supplements and complements other inquiries, such as the Independent Climate Change E-mail Review led by Sir Muir Russell and the Science Assessment Panel led by Lord Oxburgh.

It considered each and every hacked email and its context, resulting in hundreds of pages of detailed reporting. It was not commissioned by UEA, and indeed we were not even aware that it was being undertaken. Its focus was on any implications for the scientific findings of CRU and, particularly, the much more voluminous body of climate science work as a whole.

OK, the Press Release also appears to have been prepared by Erin Birgfeld. A draft was sent on July 22 to Millett and Andrea Drinkard, both in the EPA communications office, and on July 26 to Cathy Milbourn (communications) following OGC edits. It does not seem to have been reviewed by any topic specialists.

The characterizations by Birgfeld (and her office) of the formal documents are frequently inaccurate. The formal documents do not appear to exactly say that EPA investigated “every email” if exactly parsed, though some statements can give that impression.

I didn’t understand Steve’s previous critique about blogs claiming climategate was about global temperature data. It is really unfortunate that any petitioner tried to use the emails to prove anything about global temp data as it gives the advocacy crowd something to glom onto instead of the real issue. Bummer.

the petitions were remarkably ill-informed about the Climategate emails. Nearly all of them seemed to think that the emails were about temperature data. Temperature data controversies, even minor ones, are prominently featured, while there is very little in the petitions about paleoclimate, other than hide-the-decline, where the description is botched in most of the petitions.

I read today carefully also the parts of Volume 1 relating to tempereture data (and not so much to CRU emails). First, the style there is IMO different from the parts I referred in “Who wrote the EPA documents?”-post. Second, several answers seem to indicate me that the writer(s) had almost internal knowledge from NOAA. Especially, consider Response 1-73. It relates to Willis’ post The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero. EPA writes (the letter is also mentioned in 1-71):

Tom Peterson from the NCDC at NOAA responded to a request for information from the author of the “smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero” post, posted in the comments at Watts (2010) and reproduced here

Watts (2010) is Willis’ post Darwin Zero Before and After (posted Dec 20, 2009) and this is the only reference to that post in the whole EPA document! How on Earth the EPA writer was aware of such a letter posted in the end of comments of a different post (late in Christmas Eve)?

BTW, was Tom Peterson or a very close associate also (as Gavin) a reviewer of the original EPA document?

Steve: Jean S, you say that the Peterson letter was posted in the comments of a “different post” but it is in the Darwin Zero thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/#comment-272529. The Darwin thread was cited in the petition of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (who seem to have learned of it via American Thinker). EPA staff could have read the Darwin Zero and noticed Peterson’s comment there. It’s also possible that they asked Peterson to review the RTP documents (an entirely plausible reviewer) and that Peterson pointed out his response.

Jean S: It is in the end of “before and after” -post (=”different post”), but I’m still unable to find any other reference to that post apart from the cited. It is the “smoking gun”-post that is cited by the SLF and as I said, is the topic of the discussion. IMO, pointing the letter out requires a bit more active involnment than just reviewing once an (almost final) manuscript. But if such an involnment (iterations between writers and reviewers) did happen, it also easily explains the parts that seem to have Gavin’s signature.

I had in mind the “every email” line that Jean S quoted. Even if they attached a printout of CG1 to a footnote, that doesn’t mean they actually studied them. Presumably if they did as detailed a review as they claim to have done, there will be documentation and a summary report to someone in the EPA. Of course it goes without saying that any such investigation is voided because they did not consult with any of the parties (like Steve and me) whose work was being disparaged to get clarification on what the emails might have meant, or how the intentions revealed in the emails matched the contemporaneous actions on the part of the email authors. Their so-called investigation was just an exercize in ticking a box, so they could say they’d done it while just running through a formality in support of a foregone conclusion.

The emails are basically as provided by Peabody with their petition. From a Peabody footnote:

“We are providing these emails and all of the information that was released from the CRU website as it was originally released. This includes the “Harry_Read_Me” files that we refer to later in this Petition. Because of the volume of the information, we are providing it to EPA on a disk. The emails are identified in this Petition using written without correcting or indicating improper spelling.”

Peabody based its petition on the emails:

“Peabody’s petition is based primarily on the release of email and other information from the University of East Anglia (“UEA”) Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) in November of last year.2 The CRU information undermines a number of the central pillars on which the Endangerment Finding rests, particularly the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”).”

EPA did not choose to focus on the temperature measurement aspect of the emails. They responded to what Peabody chose.

Steve: Nick, have you read the petitions? While numerous petitions unduly focused on temperature data, the Peabody petition wasn’t among them. While it had a short section on temperature data, most of the petition was on other issues. Out of all of the petitions, in my opinion, the Peabody petition is by far the most insightful and least preoccupied by temperature data. But the due date for the petitions was less than 90 days after the emails first became available and the emails were still being assimilated. Having said that, many of the petitioners seem to have worked off news stories and to be unaware of some of the main Climate Audit commentary on the emails.

I agree that the petitions (other than Peabody) unduly focused on temperature data and that EPA was therefore obliged to respond to these topics. However, substantive issues were raised about emails concerning paleoclimate. I’ve looked closely at Volume 1 and far too often, EPA’s responses show no substantive “investigation”, as opposed to relatively off-the-cuff talking points. I’ve been looking at their handling of the Mannkovitch bodge, an issue on which Jean S did a remarkable analysis. The issue was raised in one of the petitions, but simply brushed off by EPA, whose response reads little different than a quick and unresearched retort on a blog.

As I’ve observed before, it is my opinion that EPA took a clever and lawyerly approach to evade investigating the Mann controversies, but that should not be equated to have carried out an “investigation” of the Mann controversies – something that they didn’t do.

Peabody’s arguments were in no way limited to the instrumental temperature record, nor were the Climategate I emails and documents limited to paleo climate issues. The table of contents for their Petition for Reconsideration is 5 pages long, and outlines their arguments, which were many and varied. The document is 238 pages long with 513 footnotes.

EPA chose for strategic reasons to respond to a cartoon version of the arguments made by Peabody and the other Petitioners, finding the caricatures easier to deal with than the actual arguments.

The EPA has already said they punted (or outsourced) their fact-finding to the IPCC and NOAA. They were not supposed to do this. It goes against their charter. But I doubt if there’s much to be done about it now.

This may be relevant to the MannSteyn litigation, but only if a series of decisions cascades in a certain way. Otherwise, talking points have already been pooh-poohed as being definitive representations of policy–as you note above, the talking points regarding the U.S. ambassador’s murder were pretty much glided past.

I should think that direct questioning of those you suspect were involved is the only way of getting anything really interesting. That might only happen at trial.

Thanks, Steve. So essentially if there are no actual specific and on point exonerations of Mann’s work from authoritative and independent sources that are widely publicized then charges of malice have little if any legal foundation?

Small typo: Lesley Lesley Jantarsami = Lesley Jantarasami. She joined the EPA in 2009 did a Master of Science and Master of Public Administration degrees from University of Washington, and an undergraduate degree is from Duke University in Environmental Science and Policy.http://www.epa.gov/ohr/pmf/pmf_bios.htm

All this is new to me and intriguing. I have not previously looked at the EPA responses to the petitions. Whoever was involved in writing the responses seems to have had a detailed familiarity with the CRU emails and an in-depth understanding of Gavin Schmidt’s view of the strengths of models. See Comment 1-31 here http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html

Yes, the writer in 1-31 seems also to know exactly what was in Gavin’s figure (attached by Mann) although from CG we only know that the figure was an update of a similar figure in a RC post (which actually contains several figures).

Is Gavin sweating yet? It is important that he answer questions (including YES or NO) about his possible involvement in the EPA docs. Given that he is a prominent “public servant” in the US govt. bureaucracies, given that the EPA is in serious violation of its own Charter while producing such inept documents, Gavin Schmidt (among others) has an ethical obligation to come clean on anything he may know or have done pertaining to the production of the EPA docs.

This all reminds me of a question asked here previously in a CA post on another topic:

I skimmed through it. It did not address head on the argument of Amicus that the defendants were not compelled to accept the conclusions of government investigative bodies.

In addition, Mann’s lawyer continue to attempt to mislead the Court regarding the conclusions of the investigative reports by asserting that they exonerate Mann. They have corrected many of the misquotes to make clear that the conclusions apply to the work of CRU. As someone who has read SM’s analysis, I left puzzled how the lawyers can argue that their quoted material is relevant.

I think the brief makes Mann’s position very vulnerable to a strong rebuttal brief that I believe the defendants are entitled to file.

I am curious – has anybody gone through the CG3 dump to look for involvement of the usual suspects regarding the EPA decision?
Steve: the Climategate dossier ended in Nov 2009 and did not overlap the EPA petitions.